THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES OFFICIAL REPORT IN THE THIRD SESSION OF THE FIFTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND [WHICH OPENED 7 MAY 1997] FORTY-NINTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II
SIXTH SERIES
VOLUME 351 THIRTEENTH VOLUME OF SESSION 1999-2000
House of Commons
Monday 5 June 2000
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
DEFENCE
The Secretary of State was asked--
Decommissioning (Warships and Submarines)
1. Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): What his policy is on the decommissioning of warships and submarines that were built less than 20 years ago. [122639]
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The life of each vessel is planned carefully at the design and procurement stage, but requirements change over the course of a ship's life and we must maintain an affordable front-line capability to meet the current and predicted strategic requirements.
Mr. Prentice: Jane's Fighting Ships is not my usual reading, but I found it worrying that the editor of that august manual fired a broadside at the Government, saying that we were flogging off at a knock-down price ships that were perfectly serviceable and were commissioned only 12 or 13 years ago. More worryingly--I cannot believe that this is true--he said that, in the lifetime of the Government,
we have failed to order a single warship for construction. I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about that.
Mr. Spellar: During the strategic defence review, it was clear that the requirement for major surface vessels had altered. As a result, six older and, more importantly, less capable vessels were to be replaced by three type 23 frigates. One of the reasons for the delay is that, under the previous Administration--as we and others pointed out at considerable length--the Horizon project was in considerable difficulty. We had to terminate that project and move to the capable type 45, for which we have already awarded the design contract and look forward to awarding the manufacturing contract later this year.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green): In 1997, the previous Government left one of the youngest naval fleets that had been available to the Navy since the war; frigates and destroyers at 35 and submarines at 15. Now, we have 27 frigates and destroyers and 10 submarines available to the Navy. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) referred to the early sell-off of certain ships--"early sell-off" being the key phrase. What new orders for warships have the Government placed since they have been in power?
Mr. Spellar: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has not responded to the point that I made. I will happily quote from the editorial of Jane's Fighting Ships, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) referred. It stated that the UK
- has finally withdrawn from the always ill-conceived air defence destroyer project with France and Italy, and a new national design has a prime contractor . . . The hidden cost of a decade--
- of the wrong sort of collaboration lies in the prolonged delays of introducing a modern capability in this most vital of all warfare disciplines.
Mr. Duncan Smith: We have now had the usual from the Government, which is no answer. I asked a simple question: how many new orders have they placed? As Captain Richard Sharpe, the editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, has said, this represents
- the biggest gap since the days of Henry VIII.
Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that fuel prices were moving at that time. I am surprised that he describes the fleet as less capable, particularly following the fitting of Tomahawk cruise missiles to all British nuclear-powered fleet submarines, which demonstrated their extreme capability during the Kosovo war. I am surprised also that he describes the type 45 as less capable. The previous Government left us with a considerable mess with a project that had been hanging on and which they refused to terminate. This Government had the courage to terminate that agreement with the hon. Gentleman's European allies. As a result, we have now ordered the type 45. The Conservatives left us with a mess, and it is extraordinary that they come here and pontificate in this way.
Defence Diversification
2. Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North): What progress the Government have made in promoting defence diversification. [122640]
3. Laura Moffatt (Crawley): What progress the Government have made in promoting defence diversification. [122641]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): We set up the Defence Diversification Agency last year, with a permanent director appointed last summer. The agency is already making a substantial contribution to the transfer of technological know-how between the Ministry of Defence and small to medium-sized businesses. With seven offices already established across the country, and with a further seven to follow later this year, the agency has already handled about 300 company inquiries.
Mr. Savidge: Apart from the existing Defence Diversification Agency offices in Rosyth, are there any plans to open more offices in Scotland? To what extent is the agency's objective not merely to seek profitable civil spin-offs from military production but to expand our civil production base?
Dr. Moonie: I am very pleased to be able to inform my hon. Friend that it is our intention to open an office of the DDA in Glasgow before the end of the year, as part of the next phase.
Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife): Surprise, surprise.
Civil spin-offs are a major priority for defence diversification, with a view to securing as much additionality as possible from our defence military production and research.
Laura Moffatt: As my hon. Friend has already mentioned, small businesses are the most likely to be able to take advantage of technology transfer and to use the Defence Diversification Agency for research. That must certainly be the case in my constituency. What is he doing to target those businesses and ensure that they can take full advantage of the opportunities available?
Dr. Moonie: We have quite a few initiatives in progress that will be of direct benefit to small businesses. For example, a couple of weeks ago I was fortunate enough to speak at a seminar on opportunities in defence for small and medium-sized companies; we are encouraging secondments from the defence industry to the DDA; we conduct technological roadshows and exhibitions; and business support partnerships have been established, connecting to Business Links, Scottish Enterprise and similar agencies in Northern Ireland and Wales, working in partnership with existing business support networks and initiatives. We believe that an effective working partnership with intermediary business support networks is critical to the success of the Defence Diversification Agency.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): So what is the answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith)? Is it true that no ships have been ordered and that sailors now shout "Bang!" instead of using live rounds? Is the idea of the Government's diversification programme to replace offensive weapons with offensive language?
Dr. Moonie: You will be well aware, Madam Speaker, that I never use offensive language, especially in the House.
I am very much afraid that I shall have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I can add nothing to the full reply that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces gave some moments ago.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): Given the enormous importance of the defence industry to the west country and our disproportionate exposure to the sector,
how many times have the Minister or his colleagues met representatives of the South-West regional development agency to discuss diversification?
Dr. Moonie: I have absolutely no idea what my hon. Friends have done, but I have not yet had the opportunity to hold such meetings. Were I to receive an invitation, I would be very happy to meet those people and discuss our plans.
Mr. Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks): Can the Minister reassure the House that any proposals for diversification are better thought out than the plans to diversify the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, which have caused so much uncertainty and hostility among those who work for it, such as the people at Fort Halstead in my constituency? How can the Government be so sure that exactly three quarters of the staff will be diversified to the private sector yet be so hazy on all the details?
Dr. Moonie: One of the problems with conducting a process openly is that it leads to certain doubts and discussions about what one's plans are and what the results are likely to be. This is a complex process. Of course, the figure of 75 per cent. is an approximate one, but we believe that that proportional split between those to be retained in the agency and those to be privatised is approximately correct, and we will introduce plans to put it into effect later this year.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |